Bitcoin geniuses who know more than law enforcement officials, compiling their own data in an attempt to disprove the obvious. ... the amount of ego seen in this forum is astonishing.

Do computer nerds really know EVERYTHING

If you came to Bitcoin Talk it would sure seem that way...

And you guys wonder why the Internet laughs at us...

I started this thread because I was feeling a disconcerting lack of opinion. I've been spectating the debate, and both sides have come up with some interesting data. However, it has been far from a satisfactory debate in which people use actual logic. "Do computer nerds really know everything?" <-- I don't, but I can certainly compute correlation coefficients where that data is useful. Personally, I find providing some medium-level maths calming and enjoyable. I won't spend hours on differentiation for free, but I've computed binomial distribution for forum members. Math doesn't lie, and if I get something wrong, it's easy enough to prove so.

Give me a few minutes to find r on the rest of the data.

I recommend asking me for a signature from my GPG key before doing a trade. I will NEVER deny such a request.

Yeah, the Florida data for firearms murders was missing from the original information on the site Explodicle posted. I mention that above, but because the murder numbers overall are so low, in comparison to the rest, I doubt it produced much aberration in the overall data.

So I am a government spy looking to overthrow this forum with my radical statist ideas right : D ? A lot of people here on the forum know me personally (some staff members) , they know that I am a private business man and not a government worker... Is this what you people think of anyone who holds an opinion even midly in favor of government oversight ( which after all is supposed to be run by the people )?

It's sad that you need that crappy website to confirm all of your logical fallacies.

So I am a government spy looking to overthrow this forum with my radical statist ideas right : D? A lot of people here on the forum know me personally (some staff members) , they know that I am a private business man and not a government worker... Is this what you people think of anyone who holds an opinion even midly in favor of government oversight ( which after all is supposed to be run by the people ).

It's sad that you need that crappy website to confirm all of your logical fallacies.

No, I didn't state that you were necessarily a government forum spy. Did you click the first link? I left open the possibility that you were simply an over-opinionated twat.

Not to take sides, but can you do 3-d graphs? As in, XYZ coords? Perhaps you should change your ranking of 1-51 to some kind of score, then plot X as ranking, Y as crime rate, and Z as the state.A 2-dimensional view of this would be a generic "permissions" score of say 1-5, then take the average crime rate out of each group and plot that.

What should I put in Florida, or should I just chop it out and do 1-50 instead?

Quote

It's sad that you need that crappy website to confirm all of your logical fallacies.

You know, the main character on The Big Bang Theory did the same thing: call out a logical fallacy and then fall into his own. (What's his name, "Sheldon" or something? Anyways, he called out post hoc ergo propter hoc then fell prey to the Gambler's Fallacy: "What are the odds that I'd be wrong twice in one week?")Specifically, Appeal to Authority, Ad Hominem, and Appeal to Ridicule. Would you like a side of Latin?I hope nobody minds that Oxford comma there

I recommend asking me for a signature from my GPG key before doing a trade. I will NEVER deny such a request.

So I am a government spy looking to overthrow this forum with my radical statist ideas right : D? A lot of people here on the forum know me personally (some staff members) , they know that I am a private business man and not a government worker... Is this what you people think of anyone who holds an opinion even midly in favor of government oversight ( which after all is supposed to be run by the people ).

It's sad that you need that crappy website to confirm all of your logical fallacies.

No, I didn't state that you were necessarily a government forum spyx. Did you click the first link? I left open the possibility that you were simply an over-opinionated twat.

Lol the sites main focus is on crypto anarchism. And how to stop over-opinionated "twats". Linking me to some nutjob site that teaches people like you to dispel facts doesnt make you right...

Infact it only makes you look weak & proves you cannot debate what happens in RL , and can only keep your opinions limited to what you "think" you know on the internet...

Wow... 86 pages of utter shit I am in awe. I am awestruck. I am struck with such utter awe, amazement, disgust, and general shock that this post will be awfully redundant. Like that quote from 21 Jump Street... HFS. Holey flapping scythe. I am almost dumbfounded as when I saw the Grand Canyon for the first time.

I recommend asking me for a signature from my GPG key before doing a trade. I will NEVER deny such a request.

Not to take sides, but can you do 3-d graphs? As in, XYZ coords? Perhaps you should change your ranking of 1-51 to some kind of score, then plot X as ranking, Y as crime rate, and Z as the state.A 2-dimensional view of this would be a generic "permissions" score of say 1-5, then take the average crime rate out of each group and plot that.

What should I put in Florida, or should I just chop it out and do 1-50 instead?

Wouldn't that 3d graph result in basically the same graph, just smeared out over the Z axis? I mean, we're looking at two things, here, the "Permissiveness" as defined by that first article that FirstAscent posted, and the number of gun crimes in that state. Permissiveness is a ranking, from 1 to 51, with 1 being the most permissive, and 51 (DC) being the most restrictive. Given that as the X, ranking each state's relative crime level is as simple as plotting the gun crimes on the Y axis.

If it were me, I'd just drop Florida from the murder numbers. Doubt it would make much difference either way.

Lol the sites main focus is on crypto anarchism. And how to stop over-opinionated "twats". Linking me to some nutjob site that teaches people like you to dispel facts doesnt make you right...

Obvious troll is obvious. Welcome to my ignore list.

Shows why you're so god awful uninformed. You filter opinions that don't reflect yours , then have the nerve to say that we are the sheep?

I hope you didn't filter my post... but I'll save the Tu Quoque.

Quote

Shall I continue to point out the incoherent fallacies that roam through your head mykrul?

Quote from: Me

You know, the main character on The Big Bang Theory did the same thing: call out a logical fallacy and then fall into his own. (What's his name, "Sheldon" or something? Anyways, he called out post hoc ergo propter hoc then fell prey to the Gambler's Fallacy: "What are the odds that I'd be wrong twice in one week?")Specifically, Appeal to Authority, Ad Hominem, and Appeal to Ridicule. Would you like a side of Latin?

Let's add Ad Hominem Tu Quoque to that list, shall we?

I recommend asking me for a signature from my GPG key before doing a trade. I will NEVER deny such a request.

Lol the sites main focus is on crypto anarchism. And how to stop over-opinionated "twats". Linking me to some nutjob site that teaches people like you to dispel facts doesnt make you right...

Obvious troll is obvious. Welcome to my ignore list.

Shows why you're so god awful uninformed. You filter opinions that don't reflect yours , then have the nerve to say that we are the sheep?

I hope you didn't filter my post... but I'll save the Tu Quoque.

Quote

Shall I continue to point out the incoherent fallacies that roam through your head mykrul?

Quote from: Me

You know, the main character on The Big Bang Theory did the same thing: call out a logical fallacy and then fall into his own. (What's his name, "Sheldon" or something? Anyways, he called out post hoc ergo propter hoc then fell prey to the Gambler's Fallacy: "What are the odds that I'd be wrong twice in one week?")Specifically, Appeal to Authority, Ad Hominem, and Appeal to Ridicule. Would you like a side of Latin?

"Statistics" cannot invalidate inherent human rights in the U.S. federal court system, especially the right to self-defense.

/end thread

No, but I've been playing around with the data from that FBI list, and it seems to show that if restrictive gun laws do anything, they make it harder for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves from gun violence. It's nice when the data backs up an inherent right.

Oops. I'll take credit for that fuck-up. I should have been clearer that the following portion is what I wanted you to address, not the first part. The first part is done. .698 correlation, when you include all gun deaths, whether accidental, suicide, or as a result of violence (both in defense and as a result of attack, no less!), is simply not strong enough to show that restricting guns will reduce gun violence. Too much noise in the data, coming from all of those other deaths.

Tell you what: you find me data about gun crime, and I'll make another graph. If that one shows even this level of correlation, I'll eat my hat, switch positions, and start crying gun control from the rooftops. But I bet you can't.

Oh! and while I was looking up info on that data, I found this lovely little nugget:

Quote

"I am generally skeptical of gun laws," says Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA. "The theory is that gun laws may prevent crimes of passion—domestic crimes, altercations over traffic incidents, or committed by someone who is otherwise law-abiding but has an anger problem… gun-control laws can potentially do something, but the kind of crime by which they can do the least is a mass shooting."

That's from the very same article those data come from.

(as per the wikipedia article, which states that anything above 0.5 is strong),

Wow, only economics and other soft sciences would be happy to call anything above 0.5 a strong correlation. I would have a lot of publications if this was the case for real science.

Even if there was a 'strong correlation' based on some scale, it would still require some other kind of hypothesis testing. Even if a significant correlation could be detected that does not mean guns cause crime/deaths/whatever. It could also mean:

1. People in areas with less gun deaths are less likely to have guns.2. Other factor may lead to more gun deaths3. It could just be a coincident.

As a personal note. I feel safer with my gun(s). I know if guns were illegal I would not be able to carry mine around and if someone came at me with a knife, either during mass killing or a robber, then I would probably die.

I would much rather see some simulations on the ability of 1000 average people to defend themselves from a knife attack with their own knife or a gun. Then do the same simulations with a gun versus knife, and knife versus gun. Then permutate some t-tests and tell me what is more likely to keep me alive in that situation.

Introducing constraints to the economy only serves to limit what can be economical.